Search (94 results, page 2 of 5)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Ma, R.; Li, K.: Digital humanities as a cross-disciplinary battleground : an examination of inscriptions in journal publications (2022) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.
  2. Savolainen, R.; Thomson, L.: Assessing the theoretical potential of an expanded model for everyday information practices (2022) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The present study contributes to the development of integrated models for information behavior and practices at the domain-specific level. To this end, the model for everyday information practices proposed by Savolainen in 2008 is enhanced by integrating the element of information creating, based on Thomson's recent 2018 study. The integration resulted in the expanded model for everyday information practices. Using conceptual analysis, the above model was examined in light of conventional (positivist and post-positivist) and interpretive (social constructivist) criteria for theory assessment. The findings suggest that the integrated model meets best the interpretive criteria such as meaningfulness and understandability, mutuality of concepts and descriptive logic, empirical verifiability, and usefulness. In contrast, theoretical potential of the model is fairly limited when weighed against the conventional criteria, such as generalization and prediction. Overall, the findings suggest that, in its current form, the expanded model cannot be regarded as a "genuine theory" of everyday information practices. However, the model does incorporate many of the qualities characteristic of social scientific theories, and thus exhibits considerable theoretical potential. This is even more so if the interpretive, naturalistic basis of the data in which the expanded model is based is considered.
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Science, Part I : basic conceptions of science and the scientific method (2021) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.
  4. Urs, S.R.; Minhaj, M.: Evolution of data science and its education in iSchools : an impressionistic study using curriculum analysis (2023) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Data Science (DS) has emerged from the shadows of its parents-statistics and computer science-into an independent field since its origin nearly six decades ago. Its evolution and education have taken many sharp turns. We present an impressionistic study of the evolution of DS anchored to Kuhn's four stages of paradigm shifts. First, we construct the landscape of DS based on curriculum analysis of the 32 iSchools across the world offering graduate-level DS programs. Second, we paint the "field" as it emerges from the word frequency patterns, ranking, and clustering of course titles based on text mining. Third, we map the curriculum to the landscape of DS and project the same onto the Edison Data Science Framework (2017) and ACM Data Science Knowledge Areas (2021). Our study shows that the DS programs of iSchools align well with the field and correspond to the Knowledge Areas and skillsets. iSchool's DS curriculums exhibit a bias toward "data visualization" along with machine learning, data mining, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence; go light on statistics; slanted toward ontologies and health informatics; and surprisingly minimal thrust toward eScience/research data management, which we believe would add a distinctive iSchool flavor to the DS.
  5. Frederick, D.E.: ChatGPT: a viral data-driven disruption in the information environment (2023) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=983,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This study aims to introduce librarians to ChatGPT and challenge them to think about how it fits into their work and what learning they will need to do in order to stay relevant in the realm of artificial intelligence. Design/methodology/approach Popular and scientific media sources were monitored over the course of two months to gather current discussions about the uses of and opinions about ChatGPT. This was analyzed in light of historical developments in education and libraries. Additional sources of information on the topic were described and discussed so that the issue is made relevant to librarians and libraries. Findings The potential risks and benefits of ChatGPT are highly relevant for librarians but also currently not fully understood. We are in a very early stage of understanding and using this technology but it does appear to have the possibility of becoming disruptive to libraries as well as many other aspects of life. Originality/value ChatGPT-3 has only been publicly available since the end of November 2022. We are just now starting to take a deeper dive into what this technology means for libraries. This paper is one of the early ones that provide librarians with some direction in terms of where to focus their interest and attention in learning about it.
  6. Söderström, K.R.: Global reach, regional strength : spatial patterns of a big science facility (2023) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), a leading facility in synchrotron science, plays a crucial role in supporting both the local and the international scientific community by providing advanced instrumentation for their research. However, our understanding of the actual reach of the facility and its spatial dynamics remains limited. Thus, a methodology is proposed where author affiliation links are processed, analyzed, and visualized. A case study that focuses on the ESRF is implemented, where the author affiliation links of 17,870 publications over the period 2011-2021 are processed, revealing 76,850 addresses, of which 11,120 are unique locations. The results of the case study bring to light robust patterns of increased internationalization over time, accompanied by regional agglomeration and the emergence of potential research hotspots. The methodology and results are likely to be of interest to researchers in Spatial Scientometrics, which addresses some of the current challenges in the field. Managers, funders, and policy-makers can utilize this method or similar approaches to enrich impact analyses of large-scale science facilities, vital for insuring their sustained support. The code for the methodology, as well as the interactive visualizations, is freely available on GitHub for further exploration and replication of the methodology.
  7. Prokop, M.: Hans Jonas and the phenomenological continuity of life and mind (2022) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=1048,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper offers a novel interpretation of Hans Jonas' analysis of metabolism, the centrepiece of Jonas' philosophy of organism, in relation to recent controversies regarding the phenomenological dimension of life-mind continuity as understood within 'autopoietic' enactivism (AE). Jonas' philosophy of organism chiefly inspired AE's development of what we might call 'the phenomenological life-mind continuity thesis' (PLMCT), the claim that certain phenomenological features of human experience are central to a proper scientific understanding of both life and mind, and as such central features of all living organisms. After discussing the understanding of PLMCT within AE, and recent criticisms thereof, I develop a reading of Jonas' analysis of metabolism, in light of previous commentators, which emphasizes its systematicity and transcendental flavour. The central thought is that, for Jonas, the attribution of certain phenomenological features is a necessary precondition for our understanding of the possibility of metabolism, rather than being derivable from metabolism itself. I argue that my interpretation strengthens Jonas' contribution to AE's justification for ascribing certain phenomenological features to life across the board. However, it also emphasises the need to complement Jonas' analysis with an explanatory account of organic identity in order to vindicate these phenomenological ascriptions in a scientific context.
  8. MacFarlane, A.; Missaoui, S.; Makri, S.; Gutierrez Lopez, M.: Sender vs. recipient-orientated information systems revisited (2022) 0.02
    0.018633565 = product of:
      0.03726713 = sum of:
        0.03726713 = product of:
          0.07453426 = sum of:
            0.07453426 = weight(_text_:light in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07453426 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.255235 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.
  9. Fugmann, R.: What is information? : an information veteran looks back (2022) 0.02
    0.017126776 = product of:
      0.034253553 = sum of:
        0.034253553 = product of:
          0.068507105 = sum of:
            0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.068507105 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18. 8.2022 19:22:57
  10. Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020) 0.01
    0.013701421 = product of:
      0.027402842 = sum of:
        0.027402842 = product of:
          0.054805685 = sum of:
            0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054805685 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    2. 3.2020 19:04:22
  11. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01
    0.011988743 = product of:
      0.023977486 = sum of:
        0.023977486 = product of:
          0.047954973 = sum of:
            0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047954973 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  12. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.01
    0.011988743 = product of:
      0.023977486 = sum of:
        0.023977486 = product of:
          0.047954973 = sum of:
            0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047954973 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  13. Wu, P.F.: Veni, vidi, vici? : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.01
    0.011988743 = product of:
      0.023977486 = sum of:
        0.023977486 = product of:
          0.047954973 = sum of:
            0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047954973 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:33:53
  14. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.01
    0.011988743 = product of:
      0.023977486 = sum of:
        0.023977486 = product of:
          0.047954973 = sum of:
            0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047954973 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
  15. Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6.10.2020 21:22:33
  16. Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Park, Y.J.: ¬A socio-technological model of search information divide in US cities (2021) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18. 9.2021 13:22:27
  19. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
  20. Ma, Y.: Relatedness and compatibility : the concept of privacy in Mandarin Chinese and American English corpora (2023) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:59:40

Types